Pass difficulty
81.6%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Player profile
Bayer Leverkusen · Center Forward · FWD
Actual completion
73.9%
289 completed passes
Pass difficulty
81.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-7.7 pp
-30.1 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
FWD context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Pass difficulty
81.6%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure pass rate
26.9%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive pass rate
12.0%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass rate
9.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Average forward distance
-0.3 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
437.9 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.138
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Carry share of actions
57.3%
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887
Progressive carry rate
12.4%
84th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 508
Progressive action rate
12.0%
53rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887
Under-pressure action rate
45.2%
84th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887
Shots / observed match
3.35 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
14.0%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 10 eligible position peers
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-7.7 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure completion above expected
-9.9 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 105
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive completion above expected
+4.8 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 47
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-3.7 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 36
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
-0.798
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.018
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.588
22nd percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 379
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.408
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 508
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.258
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.152
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 887
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible FWD players.
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Bars are z-scores relative to eligible positional peers, not percentiles or ratings. Distance-based style separation, not a probability. Smaller values mean the player lies nearer the boundary between the two archetypes.
Leverkusen Role Fit
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other FWD contributors.
Carry Share Of Actions
Limited contributor diversity: this leave-self-out role profile is based on 2 other contributing forwards across 22 observed matches.
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict transfer success or future performance.
Expected Goals
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
77
19 matches observed
Goals
10
Total xG
10.8
Goals above expected
-0.8
xG / shot
0.1
13.0% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Attacking impact
Measures how much each pass or carry changed the expected attacking value of a possession. Positive values improved the attack; negative values reduced it.
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.018
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.588
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.408
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.258
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.152
887 actions · 379 passes · 508 carries · 46.4% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
105 attempts
47 attempts
36 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
12.0%
Pressure-pass rate
26.9%
Average forward distance
-0.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
437.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.1
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 391 passes
Style similarity compares position-relative playing style across passing and carrying tendencies. Scores are not ability ratings.
100 means identical observed profiles; 50 is about the median same-position playing style match. Not a probability.
Style similarity
65.5 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 7 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 7 matches
Style similarity
64.8 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 20 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 20 matches
Style similarity
64.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
59.0 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
57.3 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
45.3 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 2 matches
Sample support uses the lower observed-match count in each pair. Lower coverage means a measured profile may vary more with additional matches; it never changes the style similarity or ranking.